Ctrl Alt Del - Holy Soapbox Retort

CAD, an online comic that makes me laugh most of the time contributed this little ditty along with a very long post calling out gamers who hate the idea of DLC and paid subscriptions for online games. I am such a gamer, but what annoys me about Tim's post is how inaccurate he is portraying the argument on the side of gamers who dislike this. In a nutshell, here is what the CAD article says, see below:

1. The most commonly used argument (and this extends to DLC situations) is "Why should I have to pay to play something I've already bought?" In response to which I generally think to myself "Umm... because that's the way some things in the world work?"

2. You can buy a car, but unless you're regularly paying to insure it and fill it with gas, you're not going to get much use out of it. You can buy a game console, but unless you buy games or DVDs to play on it, it's a decoration. You buy a tv and then pay monthly for cable so you have shows to watch. The concept of "shelling out cash to use stuff we've already bought" is nothing new. In video games, the concept is still in its relative infancy (DLC, subscriptions) but not so much that it deserves the "ohmygodwtf how dare they?!" attitude it receives.

3. I think its born of two mostly erroneous assumptions. A) That the gamer deserves things for free and B) that it's only happening because the game developer/publisher are greedy bastards who want to pocket your subscription fees while laughing and killing kittens.

4. First of all, if a game is asking a subscription fee (and this is a generalization, I'm sure there is an exception or two) it's because there are larger costs associated with running the game. MMOs for instance, require dedicated servers and constant manpower to monitor and respond to issues. The servers cost money each month, and the people working on them need to be paid. So your initial purchase of the game pays for the (sometimes many) years of actually creating the game. Your subscription fees pay to keep the servers running and the game updated, etc.

Now, to my retort. 

1. I do not buy MOST DLC, very little of it actually gives the game more life for the price. Granted, I do not have to buy DLC and again in most cases I won't. But some DLC outright ruins the expierence that a gamer gets in the first place. Let's take Blazblue Continuum Shift to prove this point. Aksys has decided to offer as DLC another character (even before they release the game mind you). So what they're telling us is to have all the characters in the game you not only have to buy the game but also buy another character. Understand that CHARACTERS are a vital component to any fighting game and not chinsey add-ons you don't need like "skins." What Aksys is telling us then is you don't get the full game when you buy it. It would be like if Nintendo released a Mario game, but he can't jump unless you buy the DLC "Jump command for $5." It's ridiculous. Map-packs are another example of DLC that ruins the experience. If you're in a deathmatch where most people have the DLC map pack but one dude doesn't, then sorry old maps for you. This is a detriment mainly to the people who actually buy the DLC maps. Further, in the instance of Resident Evil 5 where they made people pay for the online multiplayer component of the game (which was already on the disc) is also laughable. I understand that companies develop these things and should be paid for them, of course they should I'm not arguing that. But here's what Capcom essentially did, they sold the consumer a "final product" for $60. This product was then discovered to have content not available to the final user unless they paid $5 more, thus being lied to entirely. However, what would the reaction be if Capcom sold Resident Evil 5 for $65 explaining the multiplayer component of the game is what the extra $5 was for. This is as least honest business. What they are doing instead is like if I bought a car and then discovered that I was unable to open my trunk unless I bought a special key from the dealer unbeknown to me upon initial purchase. 

2. This is just laughable, and a horrible comparison. Cars are a money pit, you always have to put more money into them. Then he makes the argument that buying a video game console and then buying games for it is continuing the "paying for it after you buy it" logic, which is also flawed. You buy a car knowing it needs gas to run it. You buy a video game console knowing it needs games to play it. In my experience of playing video games you NEVER needed to buy an extra character to play a fighting game. You NEVER had to buy a map-pack to play with everyone. Games were made and developed right the first time. The car is the investment, the console is the investment, the Game is the end-product...but here the argument is the game is not the end product anymore, such is the case with DLC. 

3. The (A) assumption is where he just doesn't understand where we're coming from. A $60 game is not free and I never see anyone complaining about initial game purchases. I never see anyone saying "this should be free," either. What I see, and rightfully so, are people saying "This should have come with the game when I bought it." How is this difficult to understand? His (B) assumption is correct. They are out to make money, and I'm not scorning them for it. In certain instances though it's utter trash, like the Blazblue one I mentioned. The game isn't even out yet, and we're already told we won't get all the characters with the game. Another thing that happens is the gamer feels cheated. They set out to buy a game for $60 thinking that's all the investment required to enjoy the product. When more stuff comes out for the game, the product they spent $60 on now feels diminished, unfinished, and now they are being charged more for it. They cannot be on the same level as everyone who bought the game as now there are classes of people, those who bought the extra character and those who didn't. Those who did can use that character to win more matches on people who do not understand the properties of that new character because they don't have it. 

4. Paid subscriptions, we generally agree here. I agree that MMO's need dedicated servers to run all their data and thus a paid subscription is warranted. I for one will never play these games however, because there are so many games I can play that do not require this. It's not my kind of game. I love games that I can go back to at any moment, pop in and go. MMO's do not have any sort of "staying power." You can't even enjoy Matrix Online anymore for instance, however I can still enjoy Pac-Man whenever I want and never once paid a monthly subscription to play it. 

To Conclude: I mentioned my thoughts on DLC in the past, I don't like it. The CAD article tells us to stop living in the past when games came out complete, those days are over. That doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't be allowed to be angry over it. I am very pleased with Nintendo in this regard as they still ship out a finished product to consumers. So in that regard, the past is not dead yet and Tim from CAD is wrong. Expectations for a finished game can still be met, and not all developers are offenders of this nonsense. The CAD article also does something else that always irritates me. He basically says "if you don't like it don't buy it." What purpose does this "advice" give exactly? It's probably my most hated quote I see online of all time. It's a nothing statement, and adds nothing to the debate. Of course if I don't like it I'm not going to buy it, the ISSUE here is the game I bought is now a lesser product because I refuse to invest more money in a game that was supposed to be the finished product. I refuse to buy the key to the trunk, I should have been allowed access to the trunk in the first place. If it wasn't done yet, don't release it. The anger is toward the companies that do this, and our general wish to make them cut it out by not buying it. Maybe I'm just living in the past, expect more from game companies, expect to buy a finished product. 

    Ultimately there is no right or wrong in this argument, you either like DLC or you don't. Heck, you can even like some DLC and hate others, that's your choice. But for Tim to claim that "we want it for free" or that we should stop living in the past is outright foolish. He can't tell me what should anger me, and he's an idiot to believe that I expect DLC for free. On the contrary, I expect my $60 to buy a finished product sans the DLC entirely. *Perhaps it is Tim that expects all game companies to screw him over so he'll simply bend over and accept it. *

Porter Perspective - E3 2010

I may as well update the site with my thoughts on E3 2010. We were supposed to do a video update, but my memory is a short one (much like myself) and need to lay out my thoughts before they die in some brain cavern guarded by an evil giant earthworm...

Overall my thoughts on E3 2010 were largely positive as a Nintendo fan. However, as a fan of gaming as a whole I was very, VERY disappointed with the show.I'll begin my review with the worst of E3.

Microsoft:

No shocker here I guess, but Microsoft clearly had the worst conference of E3 2010. Ask any industry analyst or go to any major video game site that discusses Best vs Worst of E3 and they all agree Microsoft dropped a giant turd on us all.

While we knew they would go off the deep end showing us "Kinect" (shudder) what we didn't realize is that they would...GO OFF THE DEEP END showing us "Kinect." By that I mean they literally had nothing new to show other than that. We knew about Gears 3, we knew about Fable 3, we knew about Black Ops, we knew about every game they had before they showed us they had it. It was uneventful to say the least, and comprised maybe 20% of their entire show. So for all us gaming fans we got to be "wowed" by footage we've basically seen before in Gears, Black Ops, and Fable 3. Oh and some gladiator game we only saw live action footage of...*yawn*

And then their show went to "Kinect." This would be the rest of their show, sadly. Here we have a device that is touted to be for the casual gaming crowd and thus we saw many casual games, and only casual games. Games that in my eyes lack the very distinction of being categorized as such and instead I am left to call them...Cagms?

These "Cagms" were no more interesting than what Nintendo showed us years ago with Wii Sports, but Nintendo never hid the fact that those were simply just pieces of tech demo for the Wii itself and we were sold on that. But no, Microsoft wants us to believe what they have is different in some way, you get to do all that but without a controller at all. Nothing stands between you and the game....except that it does make you stand...

A quick rundown of these Cagms you'll find that you can play with animals by waving your arms around, you can paint on the TV by...waving your arms around, you can dance at the TV, you can run in place at the TV and pretend to do all manner of other sports.
Now here's my main issues with this piece of hardware.

#1: There is nothing, and has been nothing that tells me this unit can offer a decent video game.

#2: It's targeted toward the Casual game audience right? Ok, the unit has been speculated to be priced at $150, coupled with a $300 Xbox that casual gamers are sure to not own yet. And of course $60 per game and much more in untold extras. I dare say that "casual" gamers will not be drawn in by these figures when last I checked Bejeweled is still free to play on Facebook.

Casual gamers or Desperate Housewives; you decide.

#3: The lag. Even though all the Camgs on the Kinect sucked on their own merit, watching the live demos proved to me that they also lag ridiculously. I watched as the man playing jumped, then landed. I then observed his avatar begin his jump as the human landed. This is horrible. While I never expected a 1:1 play ratio I certainly didn't expect it to be as bad as it was. How can gaming be played this way? It's as if your playing an online game with someone who has a horrible connection...constantly.

Above is what Microsoft's marketing team wants you to think the Kinect can do
What the Kinect will actually do

So how else does Microsoft try and sell this hunk of junk? Why by showing us the immense power that is online video chat....that computers have had since the dawn of webcams...A teenage girl gets up on stage and sells the fact that the Kinect is great for her being able to video chat with her friends as she is not a gamer...though later mentions how easy it is to check her gamerscore *facepalm.* So Ms. Not a gamer wants to shell out $450 + $50 a year for Xbox Live to do what her laptop already does, or what phones probably do now as well.

Now I have a degree in marketing and even I know this is a tough sell. Younger teenage girls, will they want A. Top of the line Cell phone, B. Laptop computer that does schoolwork and built in web-cam, or C. A video game console with a really expensive web-cam....
Microsoft has shown us an item that will fail with casual gamers or "Cagmers" and will fail with actual gamers as there were no decent games to play.

Two positive notes came from Microsoft's show. One was being able to watch various sports games for free through Xbox Live which is amazing when you think about the savings if you have dish or cable and just want sports. And they showed the Xbox slim which cannot get the Red Ring of Death because the system now shuts down like a normal computer if it overheats. It took you guys 5 years to implement this and could have saved you MILLIONS on RRoD hardware? Morons...

Next up was Nintendo, and they pretty much just had to deliver what we all expected the 3DS to outshine Microsoft. They did that and so much more.

Nintendo:
Nintendo's show was something I haven't seen at E3 in years. They brought to the table something gamers every year yearn to see at E3 prior to the downfall of E3 some years back. Their show was quick, concise, and comprised of nothing but an onslaught of upcoming game releases and just how fricking awesome the 3DS is going to be.
Not to drone on, this was Nintendo's show in a nutshell:

New Kirby, new Donkey Kong Country, new Zelda, new Kingdom Hearts, new Kid Icarus, new Star Fox, new Animal Crossing, new Dead or Alive, Street Fighter 4 on 3DS, new Metal Gear, new Resident Evil, new Pilot Wings, new Golden Sun, remade Zelda OoT on 3DS, 3DS has Wii-like graphics, no glasses required for 3D effects, and every company and their mother is making games for the 3DS *shows heart-stoppingly large chart of top game companies.*

Me

While it seems like I mentioned a lot of games up there I'm pretty sure I missed about half of them as I don't care for a lot of games like Ridge Racer and some other stuff they mentioned. But Nintendo's show was literally an hour and a half bombardment of future game releases and gawking at just how amazing the 3DS looked.

If I have one complaint with their show it's that they wouldn't STOP telling us about new awesome games. Hours after their show ended we learned about MORE titles coming to the 3DS. The seemingly endless lineup of quality titles on the 3DS has already out-shined the entire lineup available on the PSP and Nintendo thought it necessary to continue mentioning more games. I was overloaded and just wanted them to stop so I could process this amount of awesome.

There's really nothing else to say about their show. It was perfect, what every gamer loves to see and hear. They did it well too, we saw some clips and snippets of new games a demo of the new Zelda. They didn't drone on, they weren't boring, and the show was constantly shocking at the sheer quantity of titles.

Now on to Sony who needs to learn the definition of "pandering."

Sony:

I was hoping for a lot from Sony, more than I should have been hoping for. The show started with little fanfare as Sony came out, talked, and showed a trailer. They came out and talked again, left and showed another trailer. This went on for a long time and the trailers we were seeing were nothing surprising and about games we already knew about like Killzone 3 and Infamous 2. They went on about their 3D for PS3 that no one in their right mind would try, (glasses cost a fortune and you need a 3D capable HD TV which are upwards of $3,000).

They talked more, finally brought out the Playstation Wii with a lollipop on the end that they call Move. Maybe they took note of how horrible Microsoft's show was because they didn't stick with this for very long. It came out with a few trailers that felt way more like commercials of people pretending their holding the item in-game with the lollipop and they had a few game demos though I only remember the one where the guy is Harry Potter but isn't really.

It sucked, that's really all I can say about it. It's no better than a Wii-mote now with the Plus on the end except Sony didn't really show us any worthwhile games to get with it. Basically the PS3 can now just be a Wii when it wants to now as long as you buy the lollipop and Playstation Eyetoy. They did have Time Crisis and Tiger Woods to show which was at least what I would call video games unlike all the Kinect "Cagms."

At least we can understand what the Move can do (which is exactly the same thing as the Wii) so we know what to expect. We can expect "waggle" games, games that use a pointer to aim, sword slashing stuff...and that's about it.

Then they bring out the PSP and here's where I was hoping we'd see something amazing like Nintendo with the 3DS, a PSP2? Ok, immediately we saw that they were sticking with the PSP. Fine, I'll live with that. Any new awesome games? Well they showed us a brief cinema trailer for a new God of War that we knew they were making anyway. Sweet, I loved Chains of Olympus. But what took up the majority of the PSP's time? What did they do to entice gamers to get a PSP over a 3DS. See below.Who is Marcus Rivers? He's the new spokesman for the PSP. Yeah, because a room full of gamers wanting to see new additions to the PSP will enjoy seeing two straight commercials advertising...NOT the PSP but Marcus Rivers, a young black male who underscores all the stereotypes of the late Gary Coleman because apparently Sony's writers haven't left the late 70's and apparently think these stereotypes are still somehow accurate.

I guess it's still an improvement?

At this point I was beyond bored. I've never honestly seen more commercials in an E3 show before (even though I'm astutely aware it's all one large commercial). Finally, EA comes out and wows the crowd with some Medal of Honor and Dead Space 2. I guess we were all desperate to see some actual gaming going on, but Dead Space 2 looked super sweet. Then we saw some Portal 2 action and to top it off we see the new Twisted Metal. The end of Sony's show was the best part, all those games looked decent to great and didn't involve any droning commentary, lollipops, or Marcus.

In closing:

Let's get one thing straight here about these new "Cagms" that Sony and Microsoft are trying to pull. They missed the boat, period. The Wii was a big hit for one reason, the promise. The promise that we would play games in a new and fun way. Once that reality wore off and Nintendo got all it's money everyone realized something very quickly, that the Wii would not deliver what was promised. Even Nintendo knows this now as they are putting all their efforts into real video games again as evidenced by their E3 show this year.

Sony and Microsoft on the other hand, who once panned Nintendo into oblivion are only here to wow a crowd of casual gamers that have all but left or continue to purchase software for the Wii they already bought.

They won't be fooled twice into believing this new gadgetry will allow them to accurately pretend to bowl or hit a baseball. No, they can see that the hardware just isn't up to par yet. They saw as Sony demoed the Tiger Woods game with beyond noticeable lag and wonder to themselves why not just actually go golfing. They saw how absurd people looked playing Kinect. And I'm giving the casual crowd a lot of credit here really. The very idea that they "saw" any of this is also absurd. How many casual gamers are even aware E3 exists? Nintendo spawned the Wii from E3 but got the word out through many daytime TV shows and internet blogs. Practically everyone was messing around with the Wii from Ellen to any "Early News Show" you can think of. Nintendo couldn't buy the amount of publicity it actually got and essentially steamrolled the world.

This won't happen again, this was Tickle Me Elmo, this was Pogs, this was Beanie Babies, the Wii now is what Nintendo makes it which is a video game console once again. And once again Nintendo is one step ahead of its competition as they try in vain to play catchup making "Cagms."

*E3 2010 out*

PRE-3 - Our E3 2010 Predictions

Our first video in a while. Keith, Kyle and Porter give you a special hour long unedited view of what we think will happen in LA in the coming days.

Microsoft... We Have A Spelling Problem.

The first piece of news to come out of the Electronic Entertainment Expo in LA was the Natal Experience with Cirque de Soleil.

At the event we learn that Project Natal in now renamed Kinect (pronounce connect), and some of the games including a Star Wars lightsaber game, and Wii Sports Kinect Sports. Also demoed was Wii Fit a yoga game for the Kinect.

All of this would be news, however USA Today accidentally posted a news article about it hours before the even.

Apparently advertising is underway. A recent Google search of the word “Connect” brought up a sponsored link for the device.

Last part of this is that the even was shot Live-To-Tape to be aired in a 30-minute, commercial-free special broadcast on MTV on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm ET, and on Nick at Nite, mtvU, MTV Hits, and Logo at 9 pm ET.

I call shenanigans on this however. It is not commercial free, rather it is a 30-minute commercial.

Microsoft hold their Press Briefing later today. More news on Kinect should be coming, such as a price, a release date, and maybe a better name.

Linking it Together: The Legend of Zelda

This is an open letter to the team currently responsible for the new title in the Legend of Zelda franchise: PLEASE don't make the game suck. I've been playing these games since the very original, and feel the same way about them as a fish feels about water; they are my element, and it takes quite a lot to get me to dislike them. I've loved and beaten very nearly every Zelda I've ever played, from the original to Twilight Princess, and so I've decided to talk a little about the series and why it's such a big deal to me.

A long time ago, my Uncle hand an NES, long before my family inherited it, from him. It was one of the greatest joys of my young life to go to his house for a visit, because while there, I could play Super Mario Bros, Megaman, and, of course, The Legend of Zelda. When I was very young, I used to flip out over the game simply because it had a gold cartridge. Really!? GOLD!? I would stare at it in awe, hardly daring to believe that such a game could be touched by my hands. When gazing at it in the lineup, I simply assumed that no game that looked so splendid could be mine to play. The very first time I was allowed o play, I took the controller as if it could turn to dust in my hands. Surely, this would be the greatest experience of my life! The game did not disappoint. Where other games put you on a set path, and said, "GO THAT WAY!", this glorious game allowed you the freedom to go where you would. I was so amazed by this, that the very first time playing, I tried to play the game without even picking up the sword! Shortly after I died, I was able to start the long learning process that was the Legend of Zelda. Ever since that very first game opened the door and put true freedom in my hands, I've been a junkie for those types of games.

Moving forward through time, Zelda II was every bit as good as the original, though it did mix things up with an entirely new gameplay style. The world was enormous beyond imagination, and I never felt like I was running out of hings to do. And so it went. With each new game, I found something new to love. There were frustrations, and difficult puzzles, but as with the very best of relationships, the good outweighed the bad. For twenty years, I would never find a single game disappointing. Zelda was my rock. When Final Fantasy went awry, or Mario became repetitive, or when Resident Evil wasn't scary, or when Metal Gear lost it's freaking marbles, I always had The Legend of Zelda to turn to.

Five years ago, as I bought my Wii, a smile on my face, only one thing was on my mind: The Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess. After endless internal debate over what I should do, I had made the decision to purchase the whole new system that would be required to play the ultimate version of the game. Money in hand, I stood in a Meijer for twenty-seven hours waiting. Finally, it was time to play the greatest Zelda ever made. I played the game for days straight, and was not disappointed. Or that's what I wish I could say.

For all that I loved about it, and there was a LOT to love, I found my heart wavering. The Wind Waker and Majora's Mask, easily my two favorites titles thus far, has been utterly massive, with hours and hours worth of adventures and side quests to back up the main meat of the game. With Twilight Princess boasting the largest game world yet, I felt it was safe to assume that it would have even more. Sadly, when I played, I discovered it to have about a much to do as a game boy title. Though truly an excellent game, for the first time, I found myself unsatisfied. Shaking it off, I smiled, thinking to myself, "This was a Gamecube port, after all. They spent a lot of time preparing i for the Wii. Of COURSE something had to go." Nodding happily, I set about waiting for the next title in the series, The Phantom Hourglass.

Hooboy. This was... a problem. The game debuted on the DS, a system that has similar power to that of the N64, home of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, two of the most beloved Zelda games of all time. LOgically, with Super Mario 64 DS being an EXCELLENT port, which even EXPANDED on the original, I assumed that here, for sure, would be the sprawling adventure I desired. Not only that, but it was a direct sequel to The Wind Waker. I was overjoyed to receive it as a gift, the very day it was released. And it was... okay. Rather than exploring the possibility of a full 3-Dimensional Zelda, Nintendo opted for a more classic top-down perspective. Not only that, but rather than putting all they could into side quests and an expansive world, they instead seemed focused on replicating the pretty graphics of it's predecessor. Nice though this was, it made for lazy level design, with the game even going so far as to have to do and redo and REDO the same dungeon every time the plot progressed. With padding like this, it felt less like a Zelda game and more a pale imitation of one. With a heavy heart, I returned to waiting.

Finally, The Legend of Zelda: The Spirit Tracks arrived. Unfortunately, we have something amazing here: A bad Zelda game. Never before has this occurred. (The CDi games don't count.) Failing to even get a moment of fun for me, this game has caused me some concern. We have come full circle. Where the original game of the series bewildered me so wonderfully with its open world, the most recent game is LITERALLY on rails. You can only stop the train and get off where the game tells you you can, thus effectively removing ALL exploration.

Rather than rant about the negative experience I had, I'll now make it clear why I'm writing this; there's still time. One bad game does not a broken heart make. I'm not even more than a little concerned. I'm just imploring you, Nintendo, to not let this become a habit. Next week, you will be announcing your newest Zelda game, one five years in the making. PLEASE, before its too late, return to the way things should be. Put that smile back on my face, Nintendo. I know you can do it.

My Experience With The PS3 - Part 1

In late April, I did something that I had never done as a gamer.

I became the owner of all the consoles of the current generation. Last generation I owned the Gamecube and the Xbox, but I did not get a PS2. Yes I missed out on some great games. There is no question about that, but I am just setting up the review as someone who in this generation mainly used his Xbox 360. (Also worth noting that I did not own a PSP at all either)

Since purchasing my 360 in February of 2007, I have logged a number of hours and even got the RRoD. Yes, the 360 is not perfect, but it is what I was used to.

Now I was planning to eventually get the system. There were some games that I wanted to play and now the the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray was over, (and still to this date the Xbox has no plans of having an add-on Blu-ray player like they did with HD-DVD) I figured that a PS3 would cover my want for both.

Now came the excuse that I needed.

I got a free copy of God of War 3. With this, I justified a purchase of a PS3 slim. (Yeah, I was really just looking for an excuse).

It took me a couple weeks to find one in a store. Eventually, I got a 250GB PS3 Slim.

Unpacking

I have said it before and I have said it again that the lack of HD cables being included with the PS3 is a mistake. Lucky I had a HDMI cable handy. (Seriously go to Amazon, you can find low prices on cables there. Mine was about $7)

Though they did one-up the 360. Not only is the controller rechargeable, but they give you the cable to charge it. Microsoft want to charge you another twenty bucks for that, and for this fact I was willing to give the PS3 a chance.

Setup was easy enough, I just had to tweak a few settings for my TV but I was up and running with WiFi in 15 minutes. After the console update, I was ready to play, but before I get to this, it is a good thing to point out.

Xbox 360 WiFi Adaptor and Play and Charge Kit = $120.00
Playstation 3 = Included

The UI and OS

There is a love/hate relationship here. I love some of the features that the XMB provides. However the lack of it being intuitive is... for lack of a better work... stupid.

I use my 360 to play video, view photos, and listen to music. I expected the PS3 to be as good as the 360, if not better. Sadly, it comes up short.

Streaming Content
I was able to find a great free program for my Macbook that streams over the network. A quick Google search popped up the PS3 Media Server software and it is good, except when trying to playback HD content over WiFi, but that is really to be expected. It still works great though.

Moving Files Through USB Thumbdrive
I only have one issue with this. The fact that Sony wants you to use their file structure on the thumbdrive annoyed me... That is until Porter told me that all I had to do was hit triangle and select “View All”. I like this way better and wish I could set that to default.

I love the fact that I can just copy the files to the PS3 and not be worried about it. It is just there. Absolutely love this! Though wish I could make my own folders on the PS3.

Other Devices Through USB
The keyboard and mouse combo worked well, but I am sad that my iPhone is not supported at all. Comparatively the 360 allows me to view my pictures from my iPhone. While that is not fully functioning, it is still more than the PS3 recognizes.

This brings me to the one thing I HATE HATE HATE about the PS3.

Music
I got used to having custom soundtracks going all the way back to the Xbox. There are some games, albeit mainly sports games, that would be better with the inclusion of my own music. I am only allowed to do this by a game by game basis, and 90% of the games that I have played on the PS3 have not allowed me to play my music.

I know that I might be overreacting, but what is stopping this from happening? Not the game makers, otherwise you would see the same problems on the 360. So this is one thing that I think Sony screwed the pooch on. I want my music while playing some of these games.

This is going to conclude part one. Part two is going to focus on the Playstation Network, Games, and Blu-ray.

--Keith

Super Mario

Every game magazine worth their salt has done some sort of Mario retrospective, or history of Mario gushing heaps of praise on our little video game icon. While I wish I was the first to come up with a Mario history lesson, I'm glad I didn't have to since there's roughly 25 years of history to cover and I am a pretty lazy guy. So instead I will simply share my thoughts on him.

Like many gamers growing up in the late 80's, the Nintendo Entertainment System was the first experience with gaming many of us can remember. I know I toiled away endless hours on Asteroids for the Atari as a youngster, but playing Super Mario Brothers for the NES is honestly my first real video game revelation.

It was unlike anything I had played on the Atari before. There were backgrounds that reminded me of things I drew myself when bored, music that was actually catchy, and something that blew my mind, actual level progression. The Atari games I had played prior were only for getting high scores or beating your friend at simple games like Tank or Pong. I had never before played a game where the levels were actually changing on me and I could see the numbers increase. "How far can this go?" I asked myself once. Is world 8 really the end? It was something to strive for, something that made Super Mario Brothers special, something I will never forget.

And there was one other nuance that made the game of course, Mario himself. The way he moved, gained momentum, threw fireballs, or even growing taller, everything about him was interesting. Mario was the most versatile and fluent character for a player to control at the time. Playing as him you felt like you could do anything, make that impossible jump, or narrowly escape oncoming bullet-bills. It's not hard to imagine what many have said before, that Mario single-handedly ignited what we know as video games today.

For me though, I didn't quite get what Mario did until the later years of the Super Nintendo. I still bought those crappy move-licensed games, or horrible sports games. Occasionally I would stumble across the Mega Man's, Street Fighters, and Donkey Kong's of the gaming world accidentally tasting the golden nuggets of what gaming really had to offer. I started figuring out which games sucked, and why they sucked. I was under the impression that if I was losing at a game that it was my fault, and that others were succeeding where I was failing, not because the game was a shoddy pile of dog poo, (Terminator 2 SNES). I lived in a world of Game Genie codes and awful gameplay design, those were the dark ages.

Fast forward to the N64 years where I first got my hands on....Star Wars Shadows of the Empire. Not the worst game in the world mind you, but also not a very good one. Suffice to say I only past level 4 without cheats. But I mention this game because the mechanics of controlling Dash Rendar were TERRIBLE. The Hoth level was fabulous though. Still, the point is I immediately played Super Mario 64 right after. This was the turning point. I put two and two together. I wondered why Dash would float around after I jumped, or would skate around the floor while running where Mario was...well absolutely perfect and did everything I told him to do.

I noted that controlling Mario didn't frustrate me, and the challenges of the game were not stemming from me struggling with the character but the challenges the game had laid out for me to accomplish. I loved this. And what followed were the best gaming years I ever had.

Mario showed me what quality games were. Mario taught me that games should have a standard, and that Mario set those standards. There is honestly no denying this. Mario set the standard for 2D gameplay, just as he did with 3D gameplay. He revolutionizes every aspect of gaming we know today, and continues to prove his worth with each new iteration.

Mario is easily my favorite video game series of all time. He has never disappointed me and showed me the way to what quality gaming is.

*Yah, Wah, HOOOO!* you'll get that if you play Mario.

Rebuttal: Video Games as Art

My stance on this subject could not be more obvious, as this is a blog about video games of course I will be pro video game. Roger Ebert has made a living discussing movies and therefore will be pro movie. However, he has also started to light a fire under the bellies of us gamers by making the wild assertion that video games are not "art."

Many game websites have delivered their take on this subject and we all agree that video games are indeed art with examples abound, so I need not retread any of their points. I will instead speak simply on this matter categorically why video games are art.

Art Defined:

Before fully pursuing this subject I decided to brush up on exactly how humans define the very word art, and here's a few examples:
1. the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
2. the creation of beautiful or significant things.
3. artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication

And so on. Amusingly searching for the definition of art I came across this:
"Myst is a franchise centered around a series of adventure video games. The first game in the series, Myst, was released in 1993 by brothers Rand ..."

While clearly a failure on Google's part, I was still amused that searching "art" would bring up a very specific video game.

Simply reading the three definitions of art that I stumbled across and in no way cherry-picked, anyone can clearly see that Video Games do fall into those definitions. While the third one is clearly pointing out printed material, video games do have instruction manuals which often showcase creative artwork...=) Okay, that's a stretch.

But let us get to the nitty gritty of Ebert's complaints.

1. Games are not art because they require physical interaction on the level of sports.
2. Games have objectives to them, thus they cannot be art as art is not goal oriented but a passive medium.

Reading his article, those were the only two major points I took away from it. He spends most of his article breaking down Kellee Santiago's assertion that video games are art and she goes on to list some examples. All Roger Ebert seems to do is break down her examples with very, very invalid thoughts on them. For instance, he feels that the game Flower evokes no more emotion than that of a hallmark card. He does this from the perspective of someone who has not actually played the game. He even asks ridiculous questions like does the game keep score, or do you 'win.'

Complaint #1:

Ebert feels that because video games require interaction then they are no more art than playing chess, or playing football. While this seems like sound logic, to an avid gamer, it sounds like "To summon Bahamut you need to use the magic command." I mean honestly, does a chessboard tell a story? Do you hear well orchestrated music in tune with the actions you make on the chessboard? Do the pieces evoke any awe inspiring or jaw dropping emotions upon looking at their plastic carvings? The answer to all of these questions is clearly no you stupid fool.

The fact that he lumps video games in with sports amuses me to no end, as there is often heavy debate among athletes and professional gamers in which gamers claim what they do is on the same level as a competitive sport. And with some games, that can be true too. There are games built with a competitive idea in mind, as there are games built with an artistic idea in mind. The fault of Ebert is that he feels all of these games are exactly the same. And this is proven with his notion that he feels they all need to have a 'win' moment, or they are in turn no longer a video game...

Complaint #2:

...And this is how we come to complaint #2. Again, Ebert seems to think that all video games have to have a "win" moment, and end to the objectives, just like any ordinary board game or sport. He goes on to say that even if there are games without this "win" moment, then they are no longer video games, but merely representations of story, music, poetry etc. What? How can something be a representation of a story if it itself tells a story? How can something be a representation of music if it itself offers music? That makes no sense, and is merely stupid wordplay meant to confuse stupid people.

To comment on his logic of this "win" moment in general, do movies not have an ending in which the writer has written? Do movies not mostly all follow the simple formula of beginning, rising actions, climax, falling actions, ending? To say it simply, what is the difference between a movie having an ending, and a video game having an ending? Is it because the pace of the game is dictated by the player? Why does that matter, the content is still the same. The message of the story remains the same as well. Just like a movie, only the pace is dictated by the editors and directors.

I have to take a moment to step away and respond to his last quote in the article that bugs me the most of all.

"I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."

What he seems to be getting at here is that art can't involve the processes of Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. And he ends his high horse with "I rest my case" only maddening me further.

Let's take a final stab at what art actually is for a moment. He brings up Michelangelo's works like the Sistine Chapel, or Beethoven's music, or let's for the hell of it bring up that poor starving artist you have seen in your local mall. Michelangelo's work was commissioned, Beethoven didn't write music for the shits and giggles of it, and that poor starving artist has price tags on all his works too. Because business in this day and age has become efficient and more defined that we can have categorical ways of selling art, Ebert likes to point out that the video game trade is nothing more than that in the end, a trade, a business, a job. I wonder how many movies Ebert could have reviewed over the years if ticket prices were free. I wonder how successful movies would be without trailers, sweepstakes contests, TV commercials, actors plugging on Letterman, product placement, and so on. I wonder how successful any movie would be without his "thumbs up" for that matter.

To call Ebert a hypocrite would not be going far enough. He is narrow minded, riding on his own high horse, and demeaning a form of expression like video games that he has no knowledge of, and believes that only his definition of art is the correct one.

It is sad that Ebert speaks on a subject he clearly does not understand at all, it is sadder still that people take his opinion on the subject as fact. It would be similar if I agreed with the opinion of Creationists on Evolution. They have no knowledge of science, and they eagerly dismiss every notion of evolution they can. This is the same with Roger Ebert, commenting on a subject he literally knows nothing about.

He challenges in the article for people to offer him examples as Santiago had. While I still feel his rebuttal to her examples were extremely inefficient, I would be doing my own rebuttal a disservice by not offering my own example.

Xenogears:

This is my pick for a video game that can be called art, easily. This game has more story than most movie screenplays. It has more well developed characters struggling through a defined plot than even the best of movies. The music score it offers is nothing short of fantastic, evoking all the same emotions any piece from Beethoven can give. The game itself gives the player a long journey with many beautiful landscapes.

Ebert would point out that to experience all of these moments in the game the player has to continually compete in the games battle system defeating enemies, thus "winning," the game. Of course, I am giving Ebert too much credit in making a game reference such as "battle system," but I'm just stretching my imagination a bit. Still, why do the game elements of a video game lessen the artistic elements in it? That's a question he doesn't answer.

*Goes to play Mario Paint*

Let Me Play!

Patience has not always been a virtue in gaming. However, these days patience is a must. We must wait, and wait we shall. As gaming became more and more complex, and the medium in which games are played changed and progressed, we as gamers find ourselves doing more of nothing than something.

I for one am quite agitated with how video games have "progressed." It amuses me that years ago I could simply pop in my favorite game, flip the on switch, and boom I was playing. Here I will discuss just how gaming has made us wait far more than we ever had to and why it has caused me such frustration.

First let me briefly delve into what struck me to write this. Yesterday, I fired up my PS3 and wanted to check out the updates to the PSN store. For some wacky reason my PS3 would not connect to the internet, it has never done this before. Thirty minutes later I solve this issue, only to be stopped once again by an update. That took another twenty minutes to download and then install. Finally, that was done, and not to my surprise the PSN store wasn't even updated. So I go and play some Zen Pinball, a quick bite sized game I love dearly. I play the new table I got last week, but I swear I started to fall asleep waiting for it to load...And so the idea for this blog was born.

Gaming Medium:

This is the very first offender to how games over time have "progressed" only to get slower and slower. Now admittedly it started off worse with the Commadore 64, but those memories were quickly wiped away with the Atari and its cartridge based games that immediately started to work right away. Aside from having to blow in those games through the NES era, it wasn't all that inconvenient. Convenient gaming in this respect died right when the Playstation came out. Here we were given a few problems with this CD format. Firstly, of course is the loading times. They got ridiculous. Loading before the game starts, loading before cut-scenes, loading between stages, loading before a round in a fighting game, loading loading loading. You had to get used to it, there was no way around it.

Another problem CD's introduced was the hazard of having to change discs. It was annoying to me for such an advanced medium such as the CD to make me change discs and then remember which one to pop in if I came back months later. What annoyed me most though was that Sony boasted how much more memory its games can contain by comparison to a N64 cartridge, and yet still most great games took up 3 or 4 of them, whereas to play one amazing N64 game I only needed ONE N64 cartridge. A cartridge that didn't load, and that I didn't have to swap out. Oh, and something that didn't die immediately when it got a teeny tiny scratch on it. I have to this day, an old Kirby's Adventure NES cartridge that's missing a large chunk of itself in the top right corner and it works flawlessly still. I have a barely visible tiny scratch on disc 2 of Chrono Cross that causes the game to be unplayable.

Advanced technology my ass.

Updates:

You really can't avoid this anymore, this never used to be an issue in any way. But be it a combination of pirate protection, keeping games working, or keeping things fresh, for whatever reason game developers these days feel the need to update their games constantly and it could not be more annoying. I'm spoiled, I'll admit it, I was used to the idea that I would buy a game and it would be the final product. Now I understand that when I buy a game, they were not done with it yet, clearly they just didn't finish it. I cannot honestly fire up any older PS3 game I have because it will want me to update it, I almost guarantee this. The worst thing is, I'm not even allowed to play it if I'm connected to the internet, there's no bypassing the update. So if I ever want to play Grand Theft Auto, Resistance 2, or any number of games I'd like to go back to someday, I will have to update it. This could take anywhere from ten to forty minutes.

And for what purpose are these updates? Well most of them are to ensure that the new Down-loadable Content or "DLC" they are selling works with everyone's games, it patches them for the DLC to work in other words. But why should I care? I usually don't want the DLC. Very rarely will a game be patched because they want to fix something they didn't during development. It just awes me that I can plug in any Zelda or Mario game without the fear of seeing the dreaded "update" screen and I can't do this with half of my PS3 library.

Installing:

Games load times haven't got better, that's for sure. Now developers are actually having us install our games on our systems just so the load times are bearable. This usually takes thirty to forty minutes too. While this problem mostly pertains to the PS3, the Xbox 360 is not without this issue. Hell even the PSP has optional installation these days. The sad thing is, this really is not the fault of the console believe it or not. This is the fault of lazy developers. There are big badass games that exist on the PS3 with no installation, like Final Fantasy 13....lol, but still it's a HUGE game, no installation, and bearable loading times. But developers like Capcom will consistently have 5GB installations on ALL of there games, for no other reason than that they are lazy.

Logos:

These days, games aren't made by one company. Seemingly, they are made by HUNDREDS (exaggeration) and we are subjected to see who helped make the game every time we fire it up. I remember playing Maximum Carnage on the SNES, and this game drove me insane with the number of companies I had to sift through to finally get to the start screen. This is how it is now for nearly EVERY game made. The worst offenders are the ones that won't let you skip them, which is the vast majority of them.

Conclusion:

So between the loading times it takes to start them up, and the logos, and the possible update to follow, and nixing the loading times with a long installation, or the possibility that your game has a minor defect on it that you won't notice until the game freezes twenty hours in, waiting to play games these days gets pretty intense. Thankfully, not all gaming is like this. Nintendo for instance is still fantastic with the Nintendo DS being cartridge based still, and the Wii games don't usually have a logo problem, they have no installation, and the only thing that ever updates is the system itself and not the games. I breathe a sigh of relief playing those games, games that I know will function immediately without "advanced technology" getting in the way.

*.....loading......loading......*

I posted this in my other blog, but...

I posted this in my other blog a while back, but feel it has a place here. Go ahead and read that blog too, at fultonrants@blogspot.com.

When I was but a young boy, I began playing those most epic of games, Final Fantasy. They have always been my very favorite RPGs, as I am sure is true of many of us, but the feelings of joy and unadulterated happiness I used to feel every time a release date drew near have become dread and horror. Some recent news about Final Fantasy XIII, which I until now hailed as a savior for the series, has turned my very blood cold. This is the last straw. You, Squeenix, have betrayed my trust for the last time.This is a chronicle of how I, a once die-hard Square fanboy, became a bitter, angry Squeenix-hater.

Long ago, when I was around nine or ten, I was a firly lonesome boy. I didn't really have a lot of friends my own age, so I knd of hung around with the younger kids who lived in my neighborhood. We had little in common, but at that age, you were where you were, so I made the best of it. Until I met Dan. Dan was a kid a little bit older than me who lived up the street from me, and had that most sacred of instruments; The Super Nintendo. We hit it off fast, and soon, I was spending hours in his basement, playing Mario and Zelda, talking about Star Trek, and that was that. Until, that is... that golden day, when Dan recieved something new, something I had never thought of before... Final Fantasy III. To this day I remember the first question I ever asked about it: "If it's a FINAL Fantasy, how can there be three of them?" Dan nodded sagely, scratched his chin, and imparted to me the sacred wisdom, that he had, in fact, NO idea. Grinning, we set about playing the game. Here was something i had never seen the likes of before... an overworld. Once you got an airship, you could fly it whereever you wanted. Zelda had had something similar, of course, but not on this kind of SCALE! The turn-based battles that allowed you to think things through, the magic spells, the use of multiple characters at once... it was incredible. I remember sprawling, monstrous summons, and a deep story that I felt like my parents would be mad if they knew I had read. In time, I didn't see so much of Dan anymore, but I will always remember those days, when I first began to become the gamer I would always be. From that day, I regarded Square on the level of godhood, like the great Nintendo or Sega themselves.

The next I knew of Final Fantasy was when Final Fantasy VII came out. I was young, and confuced as hell about the numbering system. Wasn't the last one Final Fantasy III? It would be years before I heard about the now famous numbering SNAFU that led to this, but I simply shrugged and went with it. Unfortunately, when faced with the choice between a Playstation or a Nintendo 64, I had decided to not repeat the mistake of the Sega CD, and went with the 64. This gave me little to no access to the game, but I do remember playing it in pieces at a friend's house. The new 3D graphics amazed me, and I remember being utterly amazed at the speed of the Highwind, and the size of the monstrous Weapons. The story was even better than III (now known to in fact be VI), with a villain driven insane by the awful things that had been done to turn him into a hero. Gone were the short, squat people I remembered; they had been replaced with graphics that looked like humans and were, dare I say it? ATTRACTIVE.

I heard nothing of this wonderful world of games for many years, until I was going to High School. There, I was good friends with a guy named Rick, who had played but not enjoyed his copy of Final Fantasy VII, and so, gave it to me. What ensued was a wave of years passing, during which I became obsessed. I played every Square game I could get my hands on. By this point, I had my own PSX, and a world of possibilities was open to me. I played the Anthologies, thus visiting the original games I remembered, as well as being introduced to many that were new to me. I played the untouchable Chrono Trigger, and it's amazing sequel Chrono Cross. I played Vagrant Story and Star Ocean 2. I played the incredible Final Fantasy VIII, of course, with mounting joy.

Then, it happened. Final Fantasy IX. The game that was then, and in many ways will always be, my favorite RPG of all time. It was not without it's flaws, but Zidane's bright attitude and Vivi's tragic story held me in sway. Backed up by classic gameplay with a few twists, it easily ate hours of my life. With a smile on my face, I couldn't wait to pilot my strangely literal airship on a sea of mist. Thus ended what I now call the golden age of Square, and began what is now tainted forever in my mind as the Age of Squeenix.

The Playstation 2. Arguably the most popular videogame console of all time, this system is still in production today, despite the PS3 having been released years ago. With it came a whiole new wavelength of games and graphics. One day, I flipped open my Playstation Magazine, and there, printed before me, were the three letters I felt I had been waiting my whole life for: FFX. With baited breath, i read the article, frantic for any word whatsoever on this wonderful game. I soon discovered that the battle system I had grown to love would receieve a few tweaks. I had no worries, though. How could SQUARESOFT make a bad game, after all? In the months to come, when the game was finally released, I found myself to be a strange mix of satisfied and dissapointed. The game had indeed been excellent, with voice acting, action scenes, music I adored, and fun, though simple, gameplay. However, a small but inescapable cloud fell over the game. There was no overworld. I had been looking forward to flying a beautiful airship around a lovely, ocean blue planet, eagerly landing in unexplored places to seek all the strange and new secrets the world was sure to hold. Instead, i got to pick locations from a menu, and play a built in sports game.

This sadness was cut short as Square again shot me full of joy, with one of the greatest games they ever made, Kingdom Hearts. This odd mix of Final Fantasy storytelling and art direction with beloved Disney characters and locations was a surprise hit, to say the least. The very idea sounds absurd! However, I loved the game, and my doubts about Square were set safely aside for the time being. Little did I know what awaited on the horizon. Final Fantasy X-2 (Yes, that's said Ten two) was coming. At first, it made sense. "AH," I thought. "THAT'S why they didn't let you fly an airship! They knew they were going to make a sequel, and they didn't want to leave a question as to why you couldn't find the locations you visit in X-2 in the first one!" Nodding to myself, I waited happily for the game... only to be tragically dissapointed. It wasn't a BAD game... it was simply silly and thoughtless, which felt harsh and strange after the fun, deep world of X. Still in denial, I chalked it up to the natural order of things. After all, not everything is perfect every time. Even Square could make mistakes, right?

Shortly after, the Squeenix incident occurred. Square was hemmorhaging money fast after they had spent so much money on their relative failure of a movie, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Personally, I found the film to be excellent, but fans in general were crestfallen. They didn't want this new story. Most of them wanted Final Fantasy VII, but on the big screen. (Ironically, they would later get just that, and proceed to complain about it, too. You simply can't please a fan.) This combined with a bunch of other things caused Square to be bought out by Enix, a rival developer, and one who's games I had NEVER enjoyed. With a heavy heart, I purchased the first game to be released under the SquareEnix label, and was pleasantly surprised. Kingdom Hearts II was fun and intriguing, a somewhat darker counterpoint to the original. Maybe, I said to myself, things weren't so bad after all.

Then came the dark ages, from which we have never risen. The days of Final Fantasy XI. The game was designed to be a completely online experience, much like WOW, and frankly, was doomed from the start. Not only did you have to buy the PS2's optional hard drive to play it, but you had to shell out a monthly fee to be connected. I know very few people who even bothered. Those who did paint a bleak picture. Gone were the wonderful characters and events of games past, gone were controlling your parties in a turn based battle, gone were the days where puzzles took time and thought. All of this was replaced with grinding. Grinding, for those not in the know, is when you fight monsters for hours to level up your character to a point where the game becomes easier. They took a beautiful, tried and true system, and abandoned it comepltely.

Heartbroken, I waited for the day when Final Fantasy XII would be released, hoping for something, ANYTHING to dull the pain. Finally, that day came. The classic system had not been restored, so it played exactly like an MMORPG. That was bad enough, but I musceled past it. Suddenly, it happened. I realized what had been removed this time; the story. Where before there had been lovingly crafted tales of fantasy and worlds we could never even imagine, now there was a 70 hour treasure hunt. The absolute low point came for me when, in the course of the "story", a term I use loosely, it became necessary that a world famous Captain, who was in your party, reveal that he was alive and well. Instead of having him do that, they have you, a 17 year old street kid, PRETEND TO BE HIM. The utter lack of logic so defeated me that I broke inside. Not only was Squeenix crushing my childhood, but they were assuming I was an idiot, too.

With that, I put up my Final Fantasy belt. Many games have come and gone since, mostly in the Final Fantasy Tactics and Crystal Chronicles franchises, but I don't have the heart to even rent them. My very soul cries out in torment at the thought of not being first in line for a Final Fantasy purchase, but there is nothing to be done. The only rays of light come from a strange place: the PSP. Oddly, the few Final Fantasy games released on that system, specifically Dissidia and Crisis Core, were actually pretty good. For a while, I thought that this was indicative of things to come.

Suddenly, there seemed to be a silver lining. Final Fantasy XIII was on its way, and it was supposedly turn based again. It seemed to me that they were finally listening to the outcry of the fans, but recent revelations indicate that it was, in fact, not to be. Though the gameplay is of a more classic nature, they have gone one step too far. There are no longer towns in Final Fantasy, because SquareEnix has decided that they are simply "too hard" to program. They also throw around words like "archaic". The joys of shopping, visiting the Inn, of seeing what life is like in a strange new world, are gone. The world map is insanely linear, with no exploration to be had. It has been said to me that the first six hours of the game are literally in a straight line. These accusations, should they prove true, are the death of this series for me.

Final Fantasy was, to me, about exploring a fantasy. I loved the exotic locations, I loved that there were complete worlds to explore, and above all, I loved the quality. I played these games as a child not because of the popularity, but because of what the name Square meant. It guaranteed quality, it guaranteed that even if I didn't enjoy the game, I would be able to see the love and effort put into it by those who made it. No longer. The games have become lazy, and too absorbed with trying to make money off of pretty graphics and shallow gameplay.

Every Final Fantasy since IX has lost some major portion of what once was the very core of the series. X abandoned the beautiful overworld. XI abandoned the classic party system and turn based gameplay. XII ditched the once lovely story in favor of mindless droning. And XIII... XIII has abandoned what was most important of all... the atmosphere. The towns and shops and random exploration that made the worlds fell ALIVE. I once believed that the new generation of systems would bring an end to shallow games.

I hope to the god of games that these thoughts are unfounded, and that, in a little less than a month's time, I can post a retraction with a song in my heart and a smile on my face. However, I can't help but think back to the day I was a small, lonely boy in his neighbor's basement. I can't help but feel that now I know the answer to the question I asked that day. In a world where swords and spells are fast being replaced by grinding and guns, maybe the day has finally come where it makes sense. Those worlds that meant so much to me are gone. Maybe they really were my Final Fantasy.

Final Fantasy 13 - Battle System

While my opinion of Final Fantasy 13 overall is not entirely a favorable one, I also do not think it to be a bad game or bad by Final Fantasy standards in general. With that said, I do think it has the worst battle system of any Final Fantasy game in the main series (yes worse than 12).

For the uninitiated, Final Fantasy 13 utilizes what is called the Paradigm system. This means nothing without explanation of course. What it means though, is that each character has set actions under a specific title given to it, or easier explained they are temporary job classes that can be changed on the fly. Those jobs are, Commando, Medic, Ravenger, Sabatour, Synergist and Sentinel. The goal of the system is to continually keep your party in check using the appropriate skill-set needed at a specific time to either keep your party alive, or ensure the enemies stagger meter keeps going. The main goal of every fight is to raise the enemy's stagger meter to the max, break it, and then kill the enemy quickly.

While on the surface this system seems interesting, it falls apart in various ways. The first major issue I have with the system is what it actually stands for. In this game you can only control one character, that being your leader. The remainder of your team is controlled by the AI and does actions assigned to the paradigm they have set currently. So the paradigm system in the end has one and only one major function, and that is to give the AI only a very specific set of options to use and hope it does what you want. While the AI is limited, you are also unfortunately very limited to your own role and what you decide to do as the leader. To make this easier to understand why this system is not only horrible and tediously restrictive, but also to show how poorly it was implemented I will break up the issues I have found by class.

Commando: I'll start out with the game's least offender of problems. The commando class is essentially the Warrior class allowing the computer to use basically attack and blitz, blitz being an attack that affects many enemies. It is entirely straightforward and keeps the enemies stagger meter up, but does not increase it. How does the AI screw this up you ask? That answer is simple. If I want a team with two warriors, com/com/doesn't matter, the AI will attack whatever enemy I am not attacking, which is fine in some cases I may indeed want that. But I have NO choice in the matter. I can't further edit the Commando class to have the AI combo attack the same thing I am for some swift justice. Only if it is the ONLY enemy left on the field will the AI agree that it should also attack the same enemy I am.

This is just the first phase of the battle system telling me I am not allowed to decide how I want to play the game.

Ravenger: My issues with the Ravenger class stem less from the class itself and more from how the battle system is designed overall. But don't get me wrong the AI still manages to screw this up anyway. This class is the Mage essentially, and only casts offensive magic. Every enemy in the game has some weakness or immunity to one magic or another, however, the AI in all it's wisdom has no fucking clue what that weakness is unless you cast Libra. The game forces you to cast Libra JUST so the AI knows how not to be a retarded mess. Once Libra is cast the AI now knows the weakness, but it's a waste of a turn if you ask me. I KNOW the enemy's weakness 90% of the time without Libra, I've played RPG's since I was a wee lad so these games tend to make it obvious. The mere fact that because I cannot control my party means I have to play teacher for every new enemy just so the AI does what I want it to do pisses me off to no end.

So after Libra, how does the AI still manage to be a dumbass? Well it does manage this, oh yes it does. After an enemy becomes staggered you are given the ability to launch the enemy in the air preventing it from doing any damage at all. Now, I don't know about you but I want this to happen ALL the time. Here's the rub, Ravenger's only ability to launch an enemy is Aeroga (or however it's spelled) point is the AI will tend to not use this spell when I want him to, you know all the damn time after stagger. If I COULD control him that's what I would have him do. Even if the enemy is not weak to Wind, I don't care, I want that beast floating around till it's dead.

But I don't get what I want do I, no I'm playing Final Fantasy 13, the game on rails.

Sentinel: The Sentinel class is a defensive class that allows the user to literally just not die. It provokes surrounding enemies to attack only the sentinel in which next to no damage occurs. Oddly, this is the only class the AI does not manage to screw up, but I still hate it. I hate the idea that I need it (and yes you actually have to use this class). I've played countless RPG's and never was it my strategic prerogative to defend, ever. There was no need for it, even if my mage ran out of magic I'd still prefer it to attack for the measly 15 damage it could do or throw out some items. But again, I'm playing FF13 so I don't get to play the way I want to play.

The enemies in this game after a while literally force you to put up a Sentinel and either heal, or buff with the other two classes just to survive long enough to cast offensive spells. Now this is great for bosses, it actually makes you think you're outsmarting them, but when you have long 7 hour stretches of fighting enemies and waiting for the retarded AI to cast the CORRECT defensive buff (read Synergist section) on every fucking encounter, you start to want to kill yourself. Seriously, it annoyed me that much.

Sabatour: Sabatour is the class that casts debuff effects on enemies, ie slow, pain, etc. This one is funny to me. My annoyance with this class comes from my very own need to develop my own strategy in a game I've come to realize simply won't let me. The Sabatour class is the only class other than Commando that also keeps the stagger meter going without dropping briskly while having the added benefit of causing debuffs on the enemy. I love this, and hate this, here's why....the STUPID FUCKING AI.

So often I'll find myself in a tight bind in this game, nearly dead after some super attack the AI did. I want to heal, but I don't want to lose my stagger meter, and I wouldn't mind debuffing the enemy in the process. Simple solution, medic/medic/sabatour. This works great, fabulous even...until...until the enemy IS actually debuffed. I'm not fully healed yet, and the AI decides to stop doing ANYTHING because it figures the enemy is debuffed enough.

Actual conversation with the TV

"NO NO NO AI, I want you to keep casting slow before I lose my stagger meter! What are you fucking doing???"

So once an enemy is debuffed the sabatour class is actually completely useless and you may as well forget you have one paradigm setting. Oh yes, did I mention you only have 6 different settings to choose from? *sigh*

Synergist: I've saved my most hated two classes for last. Synergist is the opposite of Sabatour, it buffs your party. There are many problems with this class, I'm not sure where to begin. I'll discuss how the AI is programmed I guess. I've played this game for 40 hours now, and routinely see how the AI operates, and I just don't fucking understand its reasoning. My party is Lighting (leader), Hope, and Fang. Hope is the Synergist if you didn't know, and the rules of this game state that if your leader dies, you lose, got it? Good.

So the AI when it first casts buffs casts them on who first? Take a wild guess. NOPE not the Leader! Well what about the Synergist himself? Fuck NO! The order of buff, and this never changes, is to cast it on the third useless character FIRST for no god damn reason. I don't CARE if the third character dies, the game ends if I fucking die! I wouldn't even mind if the Synergist buffed himself so he survives and buffs my leader. But NO he buffs himself last, which makes even LESS sense considering he has the lowest HP and can die very quickly. Again, if I were in control this would never happen. You want to know the shittiest part? Say I have Com/Syn/Sent up, guess who he casts protect on first? The FUCKING SENTINEL!! What sense does this make?

There is more...

You literally get no control in this game, have I mentioned this before? The only control you get is to tell the AI what set of spells or attacks he is allowed to use at a given time. Keyword, SET of spells or attacks. Here we have the Synergist, whom has...how do I put this...an ASSFUCK set of spells that you do NOT get to decide the order in which they are cast.

Actual conversation to the TV

"Hope...Hope! Cast protect on Lighting Hope...Anytime would be great...No I didn't want shell on Fang...I don't want shell at all. Nope didn't want Veil either. What the fuck does that even do (I found out later, and really don't give a shit about Veil). Waste more time please..."

That was a normal encounter folks, one of many...This happened through all of Chapter 10 I'd say.

So here's the deal, instead of allowing the user to further customize the Synergist (or any) class telling it specifically what order you want what, or to exclude this or that, you get NO choices at all and are simply subject to the AI's whims at all times. They will literally go through the order of buffing you with every god damn spell they have. It is a waste of time!

Medic: This is my most hated class for the AI to control. It encompasses everything about how the AI and battle system functions that makes it completely atrocious and every time I see the AI use it I ask myself this, "Why can't I control what my party does?"

Oh boy here we go.

So the healing class, probably the most important class in any RPG in the hands of an AI I can't tell what to do. In Final Fantasy 12 you could tell it what to do. You could specifically set its program to revive, to heal at a certain % of health or whatever, it was your call. The Medic however, is designed thus, to heal whatever character has the lowest hit points at the time. This is a detrimental design flaw, and really the only one that actually breaks the game sometimes. Bosses and some powerful enemies have devastating attacks that will send the whole team to red. You have to HOPE and PRAY that the character in your party with the LEAST HP is your Leader. Yeah that's right, you want your leader to be on the verge of death so the AI will heal it and you'll survive. That's a perfect world though, as I've had countless battles where the AI will decide to heal another character with lower hit points all for the sake of who the fuck cares. So my leader sits there dying, and often does with the next blow while the AI thought it to be a wonderful idea to heal the THIRD character whom means NOTHING at this juncture.

Why is it programmed this way? Wouldn't you ALWAYS want the leader to be alive? Wouldn't you always want it to have top priority? Hell at LEAST heal the leader if it is blinking RED, but fuck that, the third character has less HP, heal that instead. Stupid....stupid....stupid!

Here's another fun flaw in the Medic. The raise spell. What does it do? Brings back a ko'ed character. Fucking useless in a game where if your leader dies you lose the game. So the raise spell doesn't work on one of three characters. OH WAIT! It doesn't work on TWO of three characters either. That's right, the Medic himself also has no fucking use for the raise spell....cause he'd be dead.

It gets better. The raise spell is further useless to the AI because it will never fucking cast it unless BOTH remaining characters have near full HP. I have seen it go through 4 turns making sure both he and I were literally at MAX HP until it used raise to bring the third character back. WHAT....THE.....FUCK?

Conclusion: The sad thing is all of this could have been easily avoided if you were allowed to further customize how the AI operated in their respective class. While my personal preference would be to never ever let the AI control my party anyway, I would have liked more options, more choices. The way FF13 plays now I feel like I have no control, and I'm just paradigm shifting simply to stay alive and allow the battle to play out all by itself. There is no sense of accomplishment, no sense of actual strategy either. The AI just comes out and spams all its debuffs and all its buffs because it was programmed that way. Instead of having strategic uses for any of these classes you are locked in to simply just watching shit happen, oh and casting Libra to make sure the AI doesn't fuck up more.

The intentions of this battle system are clear, it was built for noobs, 5 year olds, people who like games on auto-pilot. This was not built for gamers, not built for RPG players used to setting up sound strategic options against tough foes. There is no sense of accomplishment with this system. There is never a critical moment where you saved yourself or your party because of a decision you made. There are no decisions to make in this game, there's only what the AI chooses to do. Oh, and did I mention you also have an option called "auto battle." Prove to me this game wasn't made for noobs and I'll mail you a cookie.

*lamest battle system ever*

Assassin's Creed Poo (or 2)

Assassin's Creed was little more than a really good tech demo when it came out. It had all the trappings of a great free roam game with stealth and assassination, but was bogged down with repetition and next to zero variability. While many gamers were turned off with this three note fiddle, I personally preferred that game to what Ubi Soft has given us with Assassin's Creed 2.

Story:

The story of Assassin's Creed 2 is arguably better than the first game, it is at least more fleshed out. Clearly the developers went out of their way to make us care about Ezio as opposed to Altiar from the first game. Very generally Ezio is developed over the start of the game. He's a ladies man, gets into trouble, we see his...birth? Yeah, so it really doesn't go into a lot of hard detail like a good RPG or a game where character development matters. I honestly wish I didn't know about Ezio. Everything we were given was too general to like him, and enough to know he has no business being as badass as Altiar was. For this reason I didn't feel like a badass in the game anymore like I did in the first.

The plot itself is more or less serviceable, but exists when it wants to and not when you expect it. By that I mean more often than not you are an errand boy for someone or another and then randomly Ezio will start to pursue his own ambitions. Ultimately it feels exactly like the story from the first game. The only notable differences are the parts with Desmond, and sadly he's even more uninteresting than Ezio. He honestly may as well be the silent protagonist except that he actually talks sometimes, but all he ever says are questions to prompt the supporting cast to tell the player wtf is going on. The only reasons it seems he has to stay with the group he's with is because of his ancestry and his cock wants the hot science chick.

Graphics:

There's not much to complain about here. Graphically speaking ACII does a good job. Lighting, textures, and really good water effects stand out for me. The only problems I notices were sometimes you can be standing on top of a building looking at other buildings and they will literally just start freaking out. It doesn't happen often, but the textures on the buildings will just start jumping around and going crazy. I lol'ed pretty hard watching that happen.

Gameplay:

This is where the game really falls apart. Perhaps the fault of not enjoying this follow up is my own. I played the first installment on the PC, which was a joy to play. Never did I encounter as many frustrating moments as I have with ACII. There are some serious design choices that I find very questionable in this game.

Firstly, a simple task of trying to run someone down. The free running in this game is more than just touchy, it has a mind of its own. I feel like the game is trying to play by itself and ignoring what I tell it. Often when I'm trying to run down a thief or rich nobleman to steal their gold Ezio will decide that he wants to climb the nearest whatever because it's fun or something...

Sometimes I'll agree, and try to climb said object or building. Another supreme design flaw crops up while climbing. Unlike the first game where every building was built like a ladder and you literally just went up, ACII said screw that and for reasons of "realism" tried to make the buildings more puzzle like and not a straightforward climb. This is fine sometimes, but not when you're already frustrated during a chase Ezio starts to climb and you didn't want him to. So frustrated I start pressing random buttons and he ends up leaping like a freak off the building and I take damage.

Even while calming down and trying to figure out the asinine control scheme of climbing buildings I still can't for the life of me ever make Ezio do what I want him to do unless I find the rare straightforward climb building and just go about my business.

But the biggest flaw with climbing is the stupidest design choice I came across with this game. The leap ability (or whatever lame name the game gave it.) About 60% of the game you are playing with a flawed and mentally ill Ezio, and you don't even realize it until you get this ability. It allows Ezio to JUMP higher to grab stuff above him he couldn't reach before.... This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Ezio has to learn a lot of simple basic Assassin things through the start of the game, makes sense to me. But why in the holy fuck doesn't he learn how to JUMP and GRAB ledges? He actually has to WATCH someone do this to understand the concept. It blew my mind. All those times I watched Ezio try to climb buildings and be RIGHT at the top only to just stare at it as I hold up, and NOW he fucking learns how to jump? What's worse is even before I got this "ability" I saw him nab things higher than those glitched unclimbable buildings I came across earlier. But to actually make it an ability gobsmacks me. This should have been available at the start of the god damn game. Not only that, you shouldn't have to enter a command for it, Ezio should just DO it on his own if shit is too high for him to reach. Further, who's fucknut idea was it to make the Grab command the SAME as the Release command? Should I even have to describe why that was a stupid as fuck idea? Of all the unused buttons on the controller they had to combine grab and release....so I find myself using the shitty jump command, only to have Ezio occasionally not do it, reach for my circle button (grab/release) and have it release me off the building and then I have to go find my controller because I chucked it across the room in frustration.

Another exploration gameplay element I loathed were the 6 stages you collect ancient shit to unlock a door that has the game's best armor in it. I won't delve into how stupid I think their security system is, but let me tell you, it's retarded. The issue I take is with those 6 stages. What are they? They are HUGE platforming areas where you guide Ezio through seemingly endless climbing areas to eventually obtain one damn miserable key. With Ezio having a mind of his own and his gimped climbing abilities, these areas are the shittiest I have ever played since the dawn of 3D gaming, and I am not exaggerating. You can spend 6 minutes climbing around trying to figure out where to go next, and then boom Ezio says fuck you and leaps like a freak off and you start all over again. They actually put checkpoints in these areas, like they knew you were going to hate climbing around this shit. WHO THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE FUN? The game is called "Assassin's Creed," not "Jump from random shit to random shit" for an hour, you want to fucking kill things secretively.

I picked up playing ACII just after I got the platinum trophy on Infamous. I mention this because Infamous's exploration is a lot like ACII. The difference is that it's never frustrating. There's no "run" button, no "leap" button no "grab" button no "release" button. There's move the stick that way press X to jump, shit works. Learn from them please!

Combat:

The combat is largely unchanged from the first game, which is fine. The combat really boils down to waiting for the enemy to attack and counter him. They attack you one at a time just like last time. The only real improvement is now you can taunt, negating having to wait for them to attack you can actually prompt them to attack. There's a new type of counter now, you can take their weapon, but it results in the exact same ending as if you did a regular counter. Ezio does learn some new things, but I honestly can't remember what they were because all you have to do is use the counter command.

Music:

When it's noticeable, the music is astoundingly good. I didn't dislike a single track, and eagerly awaited prompting the next melody. Very well done, a vast improvement from the first game.

Overall:

I enjoyed ACI more than ACII. Somehow they made ACII more complicated for no reason. Sure there were flaws in ACI, but instead of improving or fixing those flaws they added more of them to ACII. It's a shame really, but I was honestly more frustrated by ACII than anything else.

*Ezio used "leap like a freak" attack*